|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted February 20, 2013 11:07 AM |
|
|
|
That sounds socioeconomically beneficial to me, because it seems to be an incentive to not fall into roles, which will make it easier for the woman to keep her job (to not lose touch with the job world).
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 11:08 AM |
|
|
you can't lose your job that way anyway
I think it's likely to be socioeconomically NEGATIVE because usually a dad, who is likely to earn more and thus pay more taxes, gets to work less.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 11:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If that's true
Is too big to be a hoax, it reached over night national scandal levels.
SOURCE
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 11:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
DF: I think corruption is a different issue. Keep in mind that tax money often has the starring role in corruption...
Corruption and nepotism is human nature. If we go all Darwin on cash-earning, as Mvass suggests, we'll have to accept it. But I highly doubt anyone would be happy with that excluding the corrupted).
In the end, we must implement some mechanisms to limit such negative effects. You can't go with a perfect economical model from the book because humans are its weakest link.
And if we start implementing mechanisms to limit corruption, we may as well leave those protecting them-who-suck-at-life. Why? Because they suck at life. We can go "haha u suck" Darwin on them, but what's the point? If we don't suck, it's probably because we got gifts from a superior gene pool anyway, like higher intelligence, good looks (very important for business career actually...), or an easy-going personality. It's not like people do ANYTHING to get those. Don't tell me a woman with a pretty face that became top model actually worked to get a pretty face, lol.
So, if we're trying to bash those who-suck-at-life, why don't we equally bash the other side of the spectrum, aka those-who-won-life-by-default? If equality is our prime concern, we should really be honest with that.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 11:39 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 11:40, 20 Feb 2013.
|
Well since you hardly choose your own parents, I think a reasonable thing for a state to do is to ensure that all individuals, no matter their background, are given a realistic chance to succeed in life. That's also likely to be socioeconomically beneficial
The most dire problem with schools in my country is that we nowdays have a large amount of people who just don't have the presumptions to make it through school in the same way that ordinary children make it through school. These people come from countries where the school systems have been completely devastated.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 12:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
you can't lose your job that way anyway
I think it's likely to be socioeconomically NEGATIVE because usually a dad, who is likely to earn more and thus pay more taxes, gets to work less.
Well, no, it's the other way round: it's socioeconomically negative that men earn more than women. If you look into history, it's clear that the establishment of basic human rights COST MONEY, specifically TAX money: people need reminders and examples.
Furthermore, while you cannot lose your job due to pregnancies and parental holidays, you are nonetheless out of the job for a time, whi means, after you get back to it, you have to make up on what you missed, which means, it costs extra effort, may involve mistakes and so on, which may and will cost money. Keeping in touch is in fact beneficial.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 01:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't tell me a woman with a pretty face that became top model actually worked to get a pretty face, lol.
Actually, I think she probably does work to a certain point. Among 7 billion people there must be hundreds of thousands of beautiful women but only a handful can become top models. I guess it requires social skills, stamina for endless hours of photo shooting and touring, management of wealth and not losing control of self in that world. Same with Hollywood, we see a dozen new pretty faces every year but only a few of them make it a decade. They are not miners from 19th century, yes, but it wouldn't be fair to say they are just pretty faces.
P.S. Any top model reading this is more than welcome to thank me.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 01:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Actually, I think she probably does work to a certain point. Among 7 billion people there must be hundreds of thousands of beautiful women but only a handful can become top models. I guess it requires social skills, stamina for endless hours of photo shooting and touring, management of wealth and not losing control of self in that world. Same with Hollywood, we see a dozen new pretty faces every year but only a few of them make it a decade. They are not miners from 19th century, yes, but it wouldn't be fair to say they are just pretty faces.
P.S. Any top model reading this is more than welcome to thank me.
They are just pretty faces. If getting a diet, working out and being able to walk for a few hours has anything to do with "work" to you, I'd beg you to become my employer  I can do that for 16 hours per day, for just 1/100 of what american top models earn!
Most people do that for free, by the way. Controlling weight is what everybody tries to do - in fear of health consequences or social stigma. Now, if we talk about people who get paid five-digit sums for doing that...
It's easy to validate this: you can become a model and work, but you can't work to become a model. Either you have what it takes by default (looks, mostly) - or not. If you were born with an ugly or average face - sorry bro. No five-digit sums for walking in underwear for you.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 02:57 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:51, 20 Feb 2013.
|
Quote:
If getting a diet, working out and being able to walk for a few hours has anything to do with "work" to you,
Well, I already told you I don't think that's all they do. Just a guess btw, nothing I feel strongly opinionated about.
Quote:
Either you have what it takes by default (looks, mostly) - or not. If you were born with an ugly or average face - sorry bro. No five-digit sums for walking in underwear for you.
I never said ugly people can work their way up as a super model. You have to be good looking, that's a must. But that may not be all there is to it. Not everybody can become a trapeze artist either, does it necessarily mean it doesn't require any work.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:27 PM |
|
|
Never said about acrobats. Modelling doesn't require any work. Unless learning how to move your hips is a difficult thing for you. You just put your underware on and go around for people to take photos of you. I feel it insults the term "work", honestly, as it's a huge-profit, zero-effort type of "I-won-my-life".
Of course that's just how I feel about it, I'm not stating this for a fact or anything.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:32 PM |
|
|
That's good, because how you feel about it is crap. 
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:35 PM |
|
|
Excuse me?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 03:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Modelling doesn't require any work.
Crap.
Define "work" in that regard.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Modeling doesn't require any work.
Emm, if by work you mean something similar to cleaning streets for 10 hours/day, then no. But modeling is not so easy, I knew a girl in and she had to follow an iron discipline and this during several years. Constantly surveying her diet, her physical condition and her sleep quality, she had no right to any social life as we mean it.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:35 PM |
|
|
|
Yup, modelling is definitely not easy and certainly requires efforts. On the other hand, it's a totally unproductive job and one of the many professions which defy logic as far as the remuneration is concerned. It's not normal someone with zero contribution to the material/services output of the society to get tens-to-hundreds (sometimes even more) of times better payment that the people who actively produce goods and services.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:43 PM |
|
|
|
Many things looks abnormal until one have the capacity to do them. Beauty is rare, being a skilled footballer is rare, being a good actor is rare too. The salaries are highly exaggerated but not everyone can get there, as it looks easy.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 04:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not normal ...
Define "normal".
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Many things looks abnormal until one have the capacity to do them. Beauty is rare, being a skilled footballer is rare, being a good actor is rare too. The salaries are highly exaggerated but not everyone can get there, as it looks easy.
It's equally hard - if not even more - to be a good scientist, a good engineer, a good architect, etc. but these professions tend to receive lower payments than, say, even a not incredibly talanted football player.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:06 PM |
|
|
|
I don't see "good scientists" on TV, though, where they are cheered ...
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted February 20, 2013 05:17 PM |
|
|
Of course, the feats of mind are less considered than what produces audience, therefore money. Why: because very few can appreciate/understand them.
Back to modeling, a fashion model is not someone who puts a 3$ tee-short and a jean then humps legs on a podium. A fashion model uses her appearance and natural chemistry to sell goods or services. Being charismatic and photogenic is required as well as having strong work ethic and a positive attitude. Usually those who buy those products are those who pay taxes by themselves equal to what 100 000 of us pay. Finally the antic Rome social model is still subsisting in a subtle way, we need to entertain our nobilis, but now only nobles by the dollar hereditary class.
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
